US Demands Death For US Citizen In Iraq - On Behalf Of Romania?

Originally posted by shots
you on the other hand are convinced he is innocient. and that its all the fault of the US when reports clearly stte it was not the US who accused him
nor was it the US who arrested him. Have a nice day

If the Romanians had everything under controll, why did the U.S. even interfere? If the Romanians wanted the death penalty, why were they not even at
the trial?

I might be biased in this but I feel that the U.S. wants to set a precedent in Iraq of the death penalty. Sounds like Saddam's rule even though
he's not in rule anymore.

How is it ok for the U.S. to give out the death penalty in Iraq, but it wasn't for Saddam? I'm not trying to defend Saddam in any way but why is it
OK for the U.S. to stoop to his level and people who cry "Saddam needed to go because he was an evil man" can see this as OK?

BUCHAREST, Romania Romania has not been informed of the trial and sentencing to death of an Iraqi-American accused of helping in the kidnapping of
three Romanian journalists in Iraq, Justice Minister Monica Macovei said Saturday.

Macovei said Romania had asked Iraq to extradite Mohammad Munaf, who has denied any role in the kidnapping of the journalists, who were held hostage
for 55 days last year in Iraq. Munaf was their guide and translator.

Iraqi authorities have only informed their Romanian counterparts that they can't send Munaf to Romania because he was under investigation there,
Macovei said. [url=http://www.iht.com/articles/ap/2006/10/14/europe/EU_GEN_Romania_Iraq_Death_Sentence.php[ Link [/url]

So, if Romania did not even know about the trial, how could they ask the US to intervene and ask for the death penalty?

Mohammad Munaf, 53, has been in U.S. custody since May 23, 2005, when he was arrested during a military raid to rescue the Romanian
journalists nearly two months after they were snatched.

Of course, it's now the AP report that's starting to look biased, rather than Amy Goodman. The right-wing Washington Post even adds the extra
crucial detail. It's always the righties who are the first to fling around accusations of bias, but when you start looking more closely... how did
they come to the conclusion that the Romanians handed Munaf over to the US when he was arrested when the hostages were rescued?

Nice, if ultimately futile, attempt to set up a straw man. And I notice you still haven't addressed the crucial issue of the US military interfering
in an Iraqi trial. I await your next straw man or distraction gambit with bated breath.

As for the alleged forced confession I assume you have not heard of the al qaeda rule that states you must claim you have been
tortured.

1) Please produce one shred of evidence that Munaf (who was a US citizen living in Romania prior to his fateful trip to his homeland) was attached to
Al-Qaeda

2) Please demonstrate how this is a PROOF that he was not tortured, when we have copious evidence (is that "la-la-la-la" sound I hear you sticking
your fingers in your ears and humming because you don't want to hear this? I think it is) that THE US TORTURES PEOPLE. Especially in Iraq.

And kindly do not imply I am picking out just certain points OK. What I was doing is comparing the inconsistencies between the reporting
sources, of which one was biased and one unbiased.

Well, you didn't look very far to compare your inconsistencies, did you? You concentrated on one tiny difference - did the judge "promise" to drop
the charges or did he just look as if he was going to do so? - while ignoring the rather larger, factual difference of whether the US arrested him or
whether the Romanian authorities turned him over to the US. If the Romanian authorities wanted him arrested, why turn him over to the US military and
not the Iraqi police? But the Washington Post added the crucial, consistent detail: that he was arrested by the US when they freed the Romanians.
The US held him for more than a year without charge and without letting him see his lawyers. That's disgusting behaviour, but you seem quite at home
with it. Like it or not, it's this kind of behaviour that distinguishes totalitarian societies like Nazi Germany or Stalinist Russia from genuine
democracies. Sadly, the US no longer belongs in the latter category.

Shots, you are picking out tiny points to deflect from the main point of this story, which is that the US has ensured that Munaf faces the death
penalty. I don't know enough of the facts to assess his innocence or guilt. If the US has any real evidence against him, neither we nor Munaf's
lawyers have seen it! That is not justice, and that is the central problem from which you consistently flee.

Originally posted by rich23
.Shots, you are picking out tiny points to deflect from the main point of this story, which is that the US has ensured that Munaf faces the death
penalty.

I am sorry you took it that way since that was not m intent. You see I have seen Amy Goodman take a story and run with it to garner public opinion
against Americans before as she has done here. It convinced many but not me.

I then took what little info we had and researched the information fully only to find out it was all lies. Lies she never retracted I might add.
A film alleging U.S special forces killed over 3000 Afghans detainees and buried
them!!!
First view her video allegations make an assessment then make sure you read my posts on page 4 then perhaps you will understand where I am coming
from and perhaps then understand why I am very skeptical of her allegations that claimed certain things were said or done, which is the main reason I
want to see more info.

Shots... amazing stuff. Still failing to address the central issue of the story, and getting your facts wrong again. Amy Goodman did NOT
suggest that the Romanians handed Munaf over to the US. She said the US arrested him. It was your supposedly "unbiased" AP report that got the
facts wrong.

But why am I bothering? There is no persuading you, and there's no debating you either. You make it a rule never to respond to arguments I raise;
instead you try and deflect from the point, most lately by saying "Amy Goodman got her facts wrong". Well, you have demonstrably got your facts
wrong, time and again. Please, try reading more carefully and responding to points that people actually raise in the thread. This is the hallmark of
honest debate rather than being a troll.

Originally posted by rich23
Shots... amazing stuff. Still failing to address the central issue of the story, and getting your facts wrong again. Amy Goodman did NOT
suggest that the Romanians handed Munaf over to the US. She said the US arrested him. It was your supposedly "unbiased" AP report that got the
facts wrong.

I am trying address only the issues in question I thought I made that quite clear. As for my unbiased source you might want to see who posted the AP
link originally, trust me you will find it was not me it was stormrider. Now what was that you said getting things wrong time and time again??

No offense but it works both ways that was an oops on your part, we all make them.

The Romanian government has accused Munaf of assisting in the March 2005 kidnapping. He was held with the three journalists for 55 days before they
were released, his attorneys said. The Romanian Embassy turned Munaf over to U.S. authorities in Baghdad.

Please visit the link provided for the complete story.

Kinly note the date of the story it preceeds the democracynow story by 4 days since one is dated on the 13th while the other is dated on 17th. Which
one is truly correct, I do not know for sure but, my guess based on Amy's past track record would be she left that part off intentionaly to put her
own spin on things if you will. Not at all that far fetched if you stop and think about.

I fully understand what you are saying when I do not address certain questions you have put to me, yet you have to understand, It is not as you assume
me refusing to address them. I just do not want to address specifics before all the relevant information is obtained. I hope you can understand.

Edit to add What do you want to bet this will be her next story to spin out of control.

A US citizen and five Iraqi accomplices were sentenced to death in Baghdad this week for kidnapping three Romanian journalists.

The Romanian news agency Mediafax identified the American as 53-year-old Mohammed Munaf, who worked as a guide and interpreter for the reporters and
was arrested by US forces shortly after they were released.

Prima TV's reporters were kidnapped by an Iraqi gang in March 2005 and released two months later. Munaf was accused of arranging their disappearance
in order to claim a share of any ransom money.

Romanian President Traian Basescu said at the time that his country's intelligence agents had negotiated the release of the journalists and that no
ransom was paid.

Please visit the link provided for the complete story.

Now who is reporting the news wrong, AP, democracy Now, or AFP? Once again I do not know but I will continue to try and find other sources that may
or may not contain direct quotes of Romanian officials as to what they claim took place.

I'm not going to join the pissing match, but I'd like to get this thread back to the facts.

We have no way of knowing for sure that Munaf would have been freed had there been no US intervention with the Iraqi judicial process. However, we DO
know that the US intervened. We also know that the US directed the judicial process in a direction polar opposite of it's own judicial system. We
know that nobody directly involved with the incident in question has implicated Munaf was involved, except himself.

The bottom line is that the US has interfered in a foriegn criminal trial, and influenced the outcome. This contradicts the fundamental principals of
the US judicial system, as well as the morals and principals the US government was structured to defend. So even if the dissolution of Munafs rights
as a US citizen is ignored, the US shouldn't have been involved anyway. There is an agenda here, and it's not the judge's, the court's, the
Romanian's, or Munaf's.

We have no way of knowing for sure that Munaf would have been freed had there been no US intervention with the Iraqi judicial process. However, we DO
know that the US intervened.

How do we know that the U.S. intervened? We seem to know that two U.S. representatives had a private consultation with the presiding judge, but I'm
not sure we even know the facts concerning that. Did the two just walk in, demand to see the judge in his chambers--in private--present whatever they
presented and then walk out. Were they invited to the courtroom by the judge? Had they been present during previous proceedings? Were there any
previous proceedings? Was any testimony ever given by anyone? What are Iraq's laws concerning "friend of the court" presentations? Did the two
give the judge a classified briefing containing information that would jeopardize other, on-going investigations or operations if revealed? There are
simply far too many unasked and unanswered questions to conclude the U.S. intervened in an on-going trial.

The remainder of your post is conjecture and opinion based upon your conclusion concerning U.S. intervention so I will not address it at this point.

that is the bottomline in the end. US military personal interfered. Regardless of what the outcome might have been before hand, they interfered with
the trial. He might have been found guilty anyway, but now because of this interference we cannot say. In america, this would probably be a mistrial
because of this error made by the US military, but its not america so I can't say what will happen.

Originally posted by shots
I am trying address only the issues in question I thought I made that quite clear. As for my unbiased source you might want to see who posted the AP
link originally, trust me you will find it was not me it was stormrider. Now what was that you said getting things wrong time and time
again??

I'm aware that stormrider posted it originally: but you were the one to leap on it as "unbiased" in contrast to your constant accusations of bias
from Amy Goodman. I'm sorry if my haste made that unclear. As ever, you don't address the central issue, that the US has interfered in the
judicial process in Iraq with the result that the death penalty has been imposed, and without anyone knowing what evidence has been presented, if
any.

Plus you don't address the Washington Post report at all. I might as well not have linked it. This is why it's scarcely worth trying to debate
you, as you simply move away from the substantive issues, and waste time trying to accuse Amy Goodman of bias. It's boring and irrelevant.

As for Astronomer's comment about how little we know - well, we do know that two US military personnel addressed the judge in his chambers and then
the judge came straight out and imposed the death penalty. If you think that justice has been served, then I sincerely hope you're nothing to do
with the judicial process. Justice, as they say, has to be seen to be done, and this kind of secrecy runs counter to it. It is regarded as a basic
tenet of civilisation that an accused person should know the evidence presented against them and should be able to argue against it. The Bush
administration has effectively abolished this right in the US and therefore it cannot be said that the US stands for justice in the world. This case
is merely one more tawdry example of how far the US has moved away from principles of natural justice.

The point concerning secret testomony is one I will gladly give you sir. That particular point has bothered me about the "military tribunals" that
are being set up to try some of the prisoners the U.S. is holding in various locations. In my opinion it is wrong to try a man (potentially for his
life) without him being able to see, hear, and rebut any wittnesses or testimony against him.

BTW rich23, justice may have been served, but the process of an open, transparent trial sure as hell wasn't.

Originally posted by rich23
As ever, you don't address the central issue, that the US has interfered in the judicial process in Iraq with the result that the death penalty has
been imposed, and without anyone knowing what evidence has been presented, if any.

That is pure speculation, no one was in the room with the judge and US officials. :shk:

You and others are assuming that is what took place based on what his lawyers have said. I probably would try and insist something similar if I were
his lawyer, yet that will not change the fact no one really knows what was said, For all anyone knows they might have invited him to dinner or perhaps
discussed other issues that might not have been related to the case.

It's boring and irrelevant.

I would not be so sure about that, I am still working on that issue.

As for Astronomer's comment about how little we know - well, we do know that two US military personnel addressed the judge in his chambers and then
the judge came straight out and imposed the death penalty.

Again you do not know that for sure nor does anyone else we were not there. It should also be pointed out the lawyer in the US was not the same as the
one in Iraq he based his statements either on emails he received or phone conversations. Now if it were via phone how sure can you be that he did not
embellish his remarks somewhat from those of the lawyer in Iraq?

Just for clarity My last statement was based on your original source used for the story between Goodman and the US lawyer.

marg6043 we know so pathetically little about this case we can't really even attempt to explain. All we can do is surmise, conjure up something that
suits us personally and present what are probably ill founded opinions.

I don't think a verdict had ever been reached by the judge to begin with, so it couldn't have been changed. There is no allegation by anyone that
the two U.S. representatives coerced the judge in any way. From what I've read so far, I'm not even sure there was a trial. I have no idea at all
if there was a jury, or if testimony had been given by anyone, etc.....

I dont see how anyone can deny this fact. Two US military Men were there and demanded the death penalty. As long as this happened, it doesn't matter
if they had a secret meeting where they convinced the judge or not, they had interfered.

We have no idea to WHAT EXTENT they interfered, but it seems painfully obvious they DID interfer.

I apologize if this comes off sounding preachy or accusatory, but I feel compelled to comment on what I'm witnessing here.

The only thing I've seen proven so far in this thread is the willingness of some to make truth claims based on incomplete and conflicting
information.

The job of a defense attorney is to represent his client, not tell the truth.

If we were to base our decisions on the claims of defense attorneys, no one would ever be found guilty.

It's Never Too Early To Jump To Conclusions

I've reviewed the sources provided in this thread and none of them individually or in aggregate offer a complete or reliable description of what is
actually going on in this case. There are many, many elements complicating this story, and many legal and ethical principles in play.

There is also a clear and significant lack of reliable public information about this case -- enough so to render a logical conclusion impossible based
solely on what has been presented so far.

Compounding the problem are assumptions, claims and accusations which aren't supported by the sources, and in some cases appear to be speculation or
outright fabrications.

That's not the way to Deny Ignorance. :shk:

The People's Kangaroo Court

I don't know all the facts in this case, but as far as I can tell, no one else here does either.

In light of that, I recommend a little healthy skepticism, reservation of judgment and perhaps a commitment to uncover the truth rather than obscure
it with fantasies and falsehoods.

But that's just a suggestion, and not a requirement. People are free to deceive themselves if they want.

Perhaps the most disappointing phenomenon is seeing some who claim to support the right to a fair trial themselves hand down summary convictions in
absentia -- without even seeing all the evidence and hearing all the testimony necessary to render a fair judgment.

nevermind, I read majics response and decided to look over the source. After doing so Im going to have to agree with majic since it seems that the
military people interfering claim may or may not be true either. Overall there is little fact in this other then there is a guy that is getting the
death sentence, and he is charging the military with coerced confession.

thanks majic for giving a wake up call to us people who were fighting over...well nothing, nothing that can be proven anyway. haha

This content community relies on user-generated content from our member contributors. The opinions of our members are not those of site ownership who maintains strict editorial agnosticism and simply provides a collaborative venue for free expression.